4 completely wrong post-election things Democrats are fighting about

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Dec 27, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/4-co...line|story&par=yahoo&doc=104185436&yptr=yahoo
    so, what say you?
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    I think they are overstating the amount of Republicans that voted enthusiastically for Trump, all the ones that I know who did vote for him did so because they hated Hillary more than they hated Trump. I would guess that the only enthusiastic ones were the 1/3rd of Republican primary voters that supported Trump.
     
  3. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    5. Their relevancy.

    Trump is going to get 2-3 Supreme Court picks, Republicans control congress and the White House.
     
  4. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #4
    So...along with our credibility as a world power...apparently grammar is also dead in this post-Trump world?

    CNBC, LOL. I am not reading that.
     
  5. Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #5
    CNBC ... chuckle :rolleyes:
    Aside, DT was an expected outcome. If not him, then someone else playing the same tune.
    Economic politics... that has been a whipping boy for our government and corporate he said vs. she said vs. they said for a while now. No president has done it right for a long time. Most have made it worse. Trump has the appearance of being able to "fix" it. This could get ugly.

    Question: Will the RC get behind him or play games AND will media report neutrally?

    Good topic even if the article is written poorly.
     
  6. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #6
    According to whom?
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    Most of the prediction sites were saying he had a 1/3rd chance of winning.
     
  8. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    Trumps going to remind the world what being a world power is. Key word: leverage.
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    Since when is it wrong to discuss (I'm not sure I would call it fighting) fitness of a candidate. You think if Hillary won, the right wouldn't be talking about fitness? Please.

    And Trump has plenty of non-supporters on the right, middle AND left. Millions of Americans voted for Trump. But Millions voted for someone else. And even more millions voted for no one. That last part, to me, is perhaps the saddest.
     
  10. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    when disgusted by all the "choices" seems that none of the above is fitting.
     
  11. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #11
    Well du du du duuu. :rolleyes:
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    One of the prediction sites had him at 1/3, being 538, and others actually criticised Nate Silver for giving Trump too high a chance at winning. The rest had Clinton at 80-99% chance of winning, including Princeton, PredictWise, Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and The New York Times.

    For instance, this beautiful graph illustrating The New York Times' Upshot model:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    Don't agree. If so, other Republicans wouldn't have failed so bad like they did in the primary.
     
  14. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #14
  15. Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #15
    Hindsight analysis.
    When you go back and look at why he won, and the messages that rang positive with the populace, someone like "DT" was bound to be the winner either this election or the next. The Dems have been losing across the board; state and federal for the last few years. It has been the focus of a number of analyses. interesting.
     
  16. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #16
    Best line in the article:

     
  17. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #17
    Who cares what they talk about? Half the threads on here are stupid. I don't care what what people there are discussing. These pundits can dissect the election till the cows come home. If they stay this disconnected maybe they can lose 2o18 and 2020 as well.
     
  18. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #18
    I agree with Bill Maher on this issue.

     
  19. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #19
    Which were based on polling, which was likely based on the 2012 electorate that skewed left.

    I think if we should have learned anything in this election it is that polling is only as accurate as the model being used. We need better models to help identify voter turnout.

    Trump's campaign knew something Clinton's did not and that was she was vulnerable in PA, MI & WI. What did his pollsters do differently? I have no idea what, but they knew to send him there and her campaign did not.
     
  20. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #20
    What this election shows us is that predictions and polling mean nothing now. Not in a day and age where someone can't have an opinion or belief without being ridiculed and berated for it. So they keep their mouth shut or lie. It's one thing to question their opinion and have a rational debate about it, it's another when name calling becomes the go to strategy right off the bat. The latter is what has become the norm.
     
  21. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #21
    Democrats lost because of their identity politics PC ********, and by electing Keith Ellison they're essentially doubling down on the insanity. They spent a lot of time and resources pandering to either tiny minorities (Muslims, trangender) or ILLEGAL immigrants (pro tip: they can't vote). Essentially their strategy alienates a large number of voters at the expense of gaining a few. They really need to get off their moral high horse and revise their playbook, because the math just doesn't make sense.
     
  22. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #22
    They could have once Hillary granted them amnesty. :oops:

    I have been saying this for years. At some point one of the groups in their coalition was going to bail.
     
  23. Strider64 macrumors regular

    Strider64

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Location:
    Suburb of Detroit
    #23
    I honestly believe the Democrats would had at least won the Presidency had they nominated anyone other than Hillary Clinton. I think socialist Bernie Sanders would had beaten Trump, for Sanders would had been well liked by the so-called "white man" vote. I remember walking around my neighborhood during the primaries seeing a lot of Sanders signs. I consider lower-middle class to maybe middle-class working people. I even saw a few signs for Sanders when Clinton won the primary election and that was all the way to the general election. I would guess a lot of people either voted for a 3rd Party candidate or held their nose and voted for Clinton.
    I have seen a local election for city mayor years ago where this woman Duggan (I think that was her last name) spent at least $90,000 for the mayor's job. Duggan got her butt spanked by a person who spean 1/4th of that. I remember about 2 to 3 weeks before the election where CNN had a headline where it said something to the effect "There's no way Trump can win. He should look for a graceful exit". It made me laugh and shake my head. I couldn't even watch CNN on election night (especially when it became apparent Trump won), for I probably would had been laughing to hard.
     
  24. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #24
    Actually I think CNN did the best job of breaking down how she couldn't win earlier than other networks. They had a board that would drill down by county and the host would highlight a county and talk about how she was coming up short vs Obama or how Trump was way ahead of what Romney did.

    Plus I think it was CNN that call one state before Fox and vice versa. So if you were flipping back and forth you knew Trump was going to win long before any single network called it.

    It was funny watching the replay on Fox when the hosts were talking and the graphic behind them called Michigan (IIRC) for Trump (which gave him the win) and it took them a minute to notice.
     

Share This Page